It's not a single project of building a huge wall of course. But the premise is true, "the West" is creating a huge border that splits the world.

Except the EU project continues to expand it's borders, and by peaceful means, not invasion or economic domination.

It is actually acting rather differently than several other western groupings.

And globalized corporations are happy to relocate particularly to low wage economies, which typically increases wealth in these places, making China, India and Brazil some of the most important sources of global economic growth (% growth is much harder when you already have a large economy. 1% in China is actually a much smaller wealth increase per capita, so there are easy gains to be made all over the developing world)

Israel and Korea are two unique borders, not at all comparable to either each other nor to the rest. Both have a poor repressed population living in what looks like a prison state, but in one case, this is imposed from outside, and in the other it is imposed from within. (And the Chinese border with north Korea isn't much friendlier...

Mexico-US, Morocco-Spain and Australia-Asia are similar, but also local and independent.

Basically this is bullshit, there are different reasons for building walls and more reasons for building roads and airports.

Show us a map of the connections, and how many new ones have opened up since theberlin wall fell, and we'll see what the world is becoming.

Also, see:http://www.ted.com/talks/parag_khanna_maps_the_future_of_countries?language=en

That was quite an interesting lecture orathaic. Left me curious to see what he had to say about the western hemisphere.

orathaic: The idea and practice of walling off your society at a national or supranational level is becoming increasingly common, though. The concept of the map surely isn't "bullshit"; there is more than a grain of truth to it.

@orathaic, there is nothing "bullshit" about the west. You cannot say that there isn't a huge wall between "the West" and the rest of the world, even if the wall is just metaphorical. What is interesting though, is the bullshit provided in the ted video. I mean, it is interesting and all, but the arguments he raises are just so incredibly naive and invalid. We can talk about this as well, tomorrow.

@JECE, is it becoming any more common though?

The berlin wall ended 25 years ago, when was the great wall of china built? Northern Ireland had many internal walls separating Catholic and Protestant areas.

I don't think it is either new nor do i see a trend of it becoming more common.

The fact is, that map seems to claim north korea as part of some international conspiracy. When the DMZ there has a lot to do with American Imperialism and Communism; you look at China today and you see trends which don't match up with a continuation of that past.

If there is any trend, it is relative to increased mobility of people - ie the ease of movement - and increased population - ie more people to move.

And while this may make a wall more cost effective (because one wall can keep out any number of people, so more people equals more people stopped per square inch of wall) this doesn't deny the contemporary increase in globalisation and movement of people which may be triggering support for some walls - that is, if there weren't more people moving in the first place, we wouldn't be building any walls.

The mexican border wall wouldn't exist if not for people moving. So the trend is towards more people being able to afford to move country and the walls are a response to this. It is a good thing that more people can afford to move - in the past they were poor or transport was expensive. They couldn't increase their options, walls as a reaction to the world getting better isn't great, but it also isn't a sign of a great conspiracy against the developing world.

@Yassem, a metaphorical wall is not what that map suggested.

There is entirely a wall of privilege in the 'West' (or the economic North, as it is often referred) and the idea that 'we got here first' is a just reason to stop others moving is rather backward.

In an ideal free market ( with no friction or state intervention) then people could move wherever they wish - with no public schools or roads to become over burdened by extra people (they are just customers to the corps running every service) we'd need no border controls (also no democracy, so no-one to be denied voting rights)

I can see this Utopia now, and aside from lacking a care for quality of life, it is rather glorious in it's equality!